Personally, I think they've waited quite long enough by Niki2

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"But I do have issue with the government telling religion how to behave."

I don't have sound where I am, so I can't watch the video. But isn't government ALREADY telling religion how to behave when they forbid marrying of same-sex couples? And if same-sex marriage becomes legal, don't you, like any other couple right now, have to find a priest/ minister/ rabbi agreeable to marrying you? AFAIK the state can't mandate that a church marry any particular couple.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 10:55 AM

America loves a winner!

Naw. It's not marriage. Sorry.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:06 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Civil services are the legal "tying" of two people together. The common sharing of "wealth" and "property".

Which, funny enough, has gained the name, "marriage." (And this is exactly the reason that marriage should never have been recognized as a legal process; it's too close a tie between church and state, and leads to moronic definition battles.)
As it stands, marriage is a legal term and a legal institution. Get the fuck over it and stop claiming it's strictly religious. It's not and it hasn't been for a long, long time now. The church does not and should not have jurisdiction over legal matters outside of marriage, they should not have jurisdiction over that, either. And if it does, the law should refer to it as something else entirely. For everyone.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:08 AM

There are a few cults in my recollection that have allowed for marriages of same sex couples (one in particular I'm thinking of also had sacred prostitution and was run by a high priestess).

Despite the religion being willing to marry the couples, the government refused to recognize the marriages, or even give the marriages the same legal consideration as a civil union.

The same is true for religions that practice bigamy/polygamy, such as the Mormon religion during Brigham Young's tenure as president.

So, this appears to also be a question about which religions and marriages will the government allow, as the government is highly hypocritical and despite claiming/aspiring to non-intervention in religion, it pretty obviously chooses which religions it will recognize marriages from. This appears to be a major legal double standard to me, and also a violation of 1st amendment rights.

The government's place is to not interfere in religion, but if it recognizes marriage as an institution that comes from religion, then there's one obvious solution. Allow the marriages legally, and it's up to the religions to decide whether they will have such ceremonies and for who. Pretty simple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:09 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Naw. It's not marriage. Sorry."

And here is our favorite buffoon telling us that if a church decides same sex marriages are OK - it's still not marriage. Because he doesn't believe in freedom of religion, he believes in freedom of HIS PARTY'S religion. What a comrade he is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:18 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Marriage is a legal institution. Churches are granted the legal power to preside over the legal institution "And now by the power vested in me by the state..." within the religious ceremony, as are sea captains. The same legal ceremony can be held in front of a justice of the peace, magistrate, or judge.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:36 AM

I heard the sea captain thing is actually only a legend.

And sure, that's why I said make it generally legal. That doesn't necessarily stop the government from performing them. So long as the individual religions maintain their choice, what should the practicioners of that religion care?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:40 AM

SKYDIVELIFE

I don't think there is a way to "win" this argument.

Marriage, in my simple opinion, is not any governments business. Also, in the 3 major religions, homosexuality is a sin. So... a church cannot be forced to marry same-sex partners, nor can a church be formed that condones such actions.

However, the compromise may be in the legal institution of civil unions. Yet, that would mean that those people who have HAD civil unions (one man, one woman, unconsecrated) accept that their union is the same as gay "marriage".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:52 AM

What? Since when does the existence of any religion dictate what other religions can do and what they believe?

The law as decided by a consensus of the population is what determines crime, thus resulting in laws against theft, murder, rape and etcetera. With the repeal of sodomy laws in a number of states, apparently this is not really considered a crime anymore (at least in those states), so what's to prevent those states from allowing it?

You got to have a better argument than that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:09 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Marriage, in my simple opinion, is not any governments business.

Legal institutions are government business. Your opinion has no bearing on that.

Quote:
in the 3 major religions, homosexuality is a sin.

Your definition of "major" is flawed. In the 3 Abrahamic religions, it's considered a sin. There are major religions that are not Abrahamic.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:17 PM

SKYDIVELIFE

Phoenix, Byte,

So, that means that the "civil union" works for everyone. It doesn't tread on the Judeo-Christian belief, and allows for the same "rights" of heterosexuals.

Although, I haven't ever heard, or seen proof of, homosexuals being denied the same rights of heterosexuals. In fact, I've seen hospitals, banks, and lawyers tripping over themselves to make sure that homosexual couples are treated right.

Can't say that for heterosexual couples. But maybe I'm just differentiating too much based on sexual orientation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:20 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Naw. It's not marriage. Sorry."

And here is our favorite buffoon telling us that if a church decides same sex marriages are OK - it's still not marriage. Because he doesn't believe in freedom of religion, he believes in freedom of HIS PARTY'S religion. What a comrade he is.

Ahh yes, name calling, right out of the box.

As an atheist, the whole 'church thing' doesn't really carry much weight w/ me. The concept of marriage, you know, man + woman, goes back a bit further than fairy tales of burning bushes or virgin births.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:28 PM

Try being asexual compared to all the "popular" sexualities. You'll see both get plenty of benefits.

Also, if government does rule against civil unions, then heterosexuals will obviously get more benefits than homosexuals would.

You're saying you'd be fine with civil unions as opposed to marriages, so that's close to what I'm proposing. What doesn't make sense to me is why it matters what something is called, and how the name for a process/institution can infringe on a religion.

Then there's the concerns that if you define something with different terminology, you can set the stage for creating unequal treatment of the different terminology. I doubt heterosexual married couples would like that if marriage was targeted, so there's some danger in a strict delineation and segregation of the concepts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:32 PM

Yeah, and the concepts of same sex unions have been documented to exist for just as far back in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Same-sex_marriage

If you want even older concepts, check out the berdache of Native American culture. Neither heterosexual marriage or same sex marriage/unions are anything new.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:47 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
Niki2:

"Marriage" is a religious ceremony. A singular "man-and-woman" ceremony performed before, family, friends, God, and ordained by a priest (or priestess).

Civil services are the legal "tying" of two people together. The common sharing of "wealth" and "property".

I don't have any real issue with two people sharing their wealth/property. I sure don't want to know what they do in their bedroom. But I do have issue with the government telling religion how to behave.

What's that document I have to get at the courthouse called? Is it called a "civil union license"?

Oh, wait - nope, it's called a "MARRIAGE license".

Last time I checked, I file my income taxes "married", not "civil unioned".

My wife and I have been together for 22 years now. We were not married in a church or by a priest. We are still married, and that's what it's called. It's not a "civil union"; it's a MARRIAGE.

If your church doesn't want to perform such ceremonies, so be it; it doesn't mean the government can't call it a marriage anyway. "Marriage" is not the property of any religion; quit trying to say that it is.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:50 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
that means that the "civil union" works for everyone.

I say again: in that case the same term should be used for everyone. Separating the terms is ridiculous.
Heterosexual couples who have civil ceremonies are still referred to as "married." A civil ceremony is, currently, a marriage, by the letter of the law. If people are going to insist that law be changed to not step on any archaic toes, then the entire law should be changed, to apply to everyone. It's very simple. You want it called civil union? Then everyone gets to have civil unions. You want it called marriage? Then everyone gets to be married, to whoever they wish to marry.
I am, by the way, saying all this as someone who is not really aimed at marriage. I don't give two shits if I'm married or not. But in terms of rights under a legal institution, difference only breeds resentment. It's wrong, on a basic logical level.
BTW, sure, banks and lawyers want the business, so I can see that, but no health insurance company in the world trips over itself to make sure gay couples are treated right. If you don't have a document that says someone is your spouse, they won't cover them, full stop. Life insurance is the same deal. A whole lot of insurance requires legal familial ties to cover or pay out. I would not be at all surprised if they were a primary funding force behind blocking equal rights, because they'd hate to be on the hook to cover more spouses. Pensions have the same rules; they go to your spouse upon your death. No legal spouse, no further payout. Legal familial ties also make questions of inheritance much less tricky. It defaults to family, after all. And I'd be shocked if it was common for hospitals to allow someone without a legal familial tie to visit after hours, or in the ICU. I've dealt with that sort of thing personally; they wouldn't even tell me where someone was because I couldn't prove I was family. They seemed very strict about that.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
I don't think there is a way to "win" this argument.

Marriage, in my simple opinion, is not any governments business. Also, in the 3 major religions, homosexuality is a sin. So... a church cannot be forced to marry same-sex partners, nor can a church be formed that condones such actions.

Actually, it's only a "sin" in the Jewish religion, isn't it? I mean, Jesus never had anything to say about it at all, did he? Is it in the New Testament, or just in Leviticus (which virtually NOBODY in this country follows to the letter, but everyone likes to quote the bits about homosexuality).

Also, if it's not any government's business, then it's not any government's business to DEFINE marriage ("one man, one woman", which is what the righties keep asking for), nor to inflict any religious standard upon the rest of us, nor to regulate or recognize - or refuse to recognize - any group's acceptance or definition of marriage.

Quote:

However, the compromise may be in the legal institution of civil unions. Yet, that would mean that those people who have HAD civil unions (one man, one woman, unconsecrated) accept that their union is the same as gay "marriage".

No, the "compromise" is to call them all marriages. The IRS already does this.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 1:16 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by SkyDiveLife:
I don't think there is a way to "win" this argument.

Marriage, in my simple opinion, is not any governments business. Also, in the 3 major religions, homosexuality is a sin. So... a church cannot be forced to marry same-sex partners, nor can a church be formed that condones such actions.

Actually, it's only a "sin" in the Jewish religion, isn't it? I mean, Jesus never had anything to say about it at all, did he? Is it in the New Testament, or just in Leviticus (which virtually NOBODY in this country follows to the letter, but everyone likes to quote the bits about homosexuality).

Also, if it's not any government's business, then it's not any government's business to DEFINE marriage ("one man, one woman", which is what the righties keep asking for), nor to inflict any religious standard upon the rest of us, nor to regulate or recognize - or refuse to recognize - any group's acceptance or definition of marriage.

Quote:

However, the compromise may be in the legal institution of civil unions. Yet, that would mean that those people who have HAD civil unions (one man, one woman, unconsecrated) accept that their union is the same as gay "marriage".

No, the "compromise" is to call them all marriages. The IRS already does this.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

I'm a devout christian and I agree with this post, though I would like to add that 'abominations' as they are referred to in Leviticus ain't exactly what they are misunderstood to be today. But that's a long spiel I've posted in other threads before.

Short answer is I do not believe homosexuality is a sin and I do not believe marriage is unique to Christianity, or even religion. You may feel a little differently about a secular marriage than you do with a religious one (I do) but I believe they should not be discriminated against and should be granted the same legal rights.

EDIT: I used to think civil unions would be fine and make everybody happy as well before I came to understand how difficult it is to get anything changed legally and how easy it was to treat different labels in different ways. Unless all marriages are labeled the same way (legally) it's too easy for insurance companies and the like to screw those with civil unions over just because they aren't 'married' or some legal language BS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"But I do have issue with the government telling religion how to behave."

I don't have sound where I am, so I can't watch the video. But isn't government ALREADY telling religion how to behave when they forbid marrying of same-sex couples? And if same-sex marriage becomes legal, don't you, like any other couple right now, have to find a priest/ minister/ rabbi agreeable to marrying you? AFAIK the state can't mandate that a church marry any particular couple.

But if a religious group wants to perform a gay marriage, they currently cannot - due to government regulation.

If you were true to your words, you would be fighting that. So I question the honesty of your respone.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Ahh yes, name calling, right out of the box.

You should be happy for that much. You're generally not worth any more.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 1:42 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Unless all marriages are labeled the same way (legally) it's too easy for insurance companies and the like to screw those with civil unions over just because they aren't 'married' or some legal language BS.

Yes. This. Thank you.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Unless all marriages are labeled the same way (legally) it's too easy for insurance companies and the like to screw those with civil unions over just because they aren't 'married' or some legal language BS.

Yes. This. Thank you.

What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.

Yes indeed. And thanks for that, Happy.

Yes, I could definitely see some insurance company playing that game. "You see, sir, it clearly states in your policy that your SPOUSE must list you as a beneficiary. What you have here, though, you see, is that your CIVIL UNION MATE declared you as next of kin, not your SPOUSE. So under these auspices, we cannot grant you any payment. I'm so sorry. Next, please!"

Also, calling everybody by all sorts of different things will create a veritable industry in paperwork, as so many laws will have to be changed and/or rewritten to accomodate the new "classes" created by the new laws.

Just call 'em all the same, and the laws still apply. "Spouse" stays spouse, "married" stays married, "husband" and "wife" stay the same, etc.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 2:29 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Ahh yes, name calling, right out of the box.

You should be happy for that much. You're generally not worth any more.

Why ? For having my own opinion ?

Woooo... cast the first stone!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 5:11 PM

HARDWARE

Having a different opinion invites attack.

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics - RAH

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Having a different opinion invites attack.

Yes, often by those who chide one for being "perfect", or prattle on about unicorns and glitter.

Please don't try to pretend that either of you are somehow above name-calling and personal attacks. You're not, and I've seen you both do it plenty of times.

Conservatives are such whiners.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 8:28 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Because we all know that two plus two now equals 7, ... why? Because everyone decided that two plus two equalling 4 was just too narrow minded and that if we have it equal seven it is a bigger number, thus encompassing more, of course.
...

But yeah, I'm fine with the idea of civil unions, we don't need to change the definition of the word marriage for people to be able to share what they have with their lovedones, whomever they may be..

If we had my way people could get a certificate of sharingstuff and they could share health insurance, hospital visits, life insurance and anything else with any person of their choice whom they wished to share with, a lover, a cousin, a best friend, whomever. Then everyone could have coverage and have rights and we wouldn't have to step on anyone's toes or sensabilities by changing definitions or equations. I support the right for Sharingstuff licenses! Wyn and Frank (Mary's friends) are oath brother and sister, they live in a house together and are in every way of affection and attachment siblings, even though it is by choice and not by accident of birth. They should be able to share stuff just as much as a blood or adoption related family, homosexual couple or any other couple should. So I like my Sharingstuff plan, now that's equality.

This may sound like a rude question, but I ask in earnest/I really do want an answer. Generally if two people are having sex and are of the same physical gender then they have chosen to do their own thing, to not do what society generally does, though these days ... anyways. So if they don't mind doing their own thing and making their own choices about how they want to live their lives, why is the idea of being "married" so important to them? They could get married through handfasting or something, in some personal or religious ceremony and call themselves married. If equal rights were given to such couples as far as all the issues that they experience a lack of rights then why is official "marriage" something they seek?

Oh and as for a new Testiment reference to same sex rutting one can find it in Romans 1 if one wants to check it out. I'm just mentioning it because someone was wondering above.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 8:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Ahh yes, name calling, right out of the box."

I guess Rap hasn't gotten the memo, even though I've posted this several times ... hmmmm ... maybe if I put it in caps ... THE ONLY VALUE RAP HOLDS FOR ME IS A THING TO POINT AT AND LAUGH. Geeee, I sure hope he gets it this time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 9:21 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I heard the sea captain thing is actually only a legend."

I have met a sea captain who makes most of his money doing marriages on his ship. Ceremony, marriage venue and reception, all in one neat package.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 9:34 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Too many good posts - I tried to highlight just a few but gave up. I wish I could say that this collection of good facts and logic would make Rap's head explode, but sadly, with nutcases like him (and the sock puppets now posting), it only feeds their delusions even MORE. If that's possible.

As it stands, marriage is a legal term and a legal institution.

The government's place is to not interfere in religion, but if it recognizes marriage as an institution that comes from religion, then there's one obvious solution. Allow the marriages legally, and it's up to the religions to decide whether they will have such ceremonies and for who. Pretty simple.

What? Since when does the existence of any religion dictate what other religions can do and what they believe?

Legal institutions are government business.

Yeah, and the concepts of same sex unions have been documented to exist for just as far back in history.

My wife and I have been together for 22 years now. We were not married in a church or by a priest. We are still married, and that's what it's called. It's not a "civil union"; it's a MARRIAGE.
If your church doesn't want to perform such ceremonies, so be it; it doesn't mean the government can't call it a marriage anyway. "Marriage" is not the property of any religion; quit trying to say that it is.

Also, if it's not any government's business, then it's not any government's business to DEFINE marriage ("one man, one woman", which is what the righties keep asking for), nor to inflict any religious standard upon the rest of us, nor to regulate or recognize - or refuse to recognize - any group's acceptance or definition of marriage.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2011 11:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Just for the asking, cause it'll amuse, horrify and perplex my ex and her new beau....

Umm, so how big does the boat have to be for that to be legally binding ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 1:06 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Ahh yes, name calling, right out of the box."

I guess Rap hasn't gotten the memo, even though I've posted this several times ... hmmmm ... maybe if I put it in caps ... THE ONLY VALUE RAP HOLDS FOR ME IS A THING TO POINT AT AND LAUGH. Geeee, I sure hope he gets it this time.

You really are making this too easy. Thanks.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:12 AM

Quote:
This may sound like a rude question, but I ask in earnest/I really do want an answer. Generally if two people are having sex and are of the same physical gender then they have chosen to do their own thing, to not do what society generally does, though these days ... anyways. So if they don't mind doing their own thing and making their own choices about how they want to live their lives, why is the idea of being "married" so important to them? They could get married through handfasting or something, in some personal or religious ceremony and call themselves married. If equal rights were given to such couples as far as all the issues that they experience a lack of rights then why is official "marriage" something they seek?

As Happy and I were discussing, it's about the LEGAL definitions involved. You can "handfast", you can swear an oath, you can claim to be whatever - but when one member of a committed couple is in a coma, and the other has no rights to even visit, much less to participate in medical decisions, then no, you really can't say they're "equal" under the law. When one member of a couple dies intestate and the other member is told that they will get nothing because they aren't the legal spouse, then you can't say that they're "equal" to a married couple in the eyes of the law.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

No matter what the states do, nothing much is gonna change until the Congress gets on the ball and repeals the "Defense of Marriage Act", which codifies 'Marriage' as existing only between one man and one woman, for purposes of all Federal law.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:04 AM

>_>

<_<

*steals glitter!*

*glitter shower!*

*steals unicorn for good measure*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:10 AM

Happy has said that it's not so much about same sex... sex in Romans, but rather the obscenity of how unprivate and open it all was in architecture, art (no graven images) and culture. The jerusalem types saw a bath house and thought, "um, what? they're naked together, in public, therefore they're animals having sex everywhere!"

I found Happy's arguments compelling, really, but I'll let him make those arguments.

Quote:
why is the idea of being "married" so important to them? They could get married through handfasting or something, in some personal or religious ceremony and call themselves married. If equal rights were given to such couples as far as all the issues that they experience a lack of rights then why is official "marriage" something they seek?

You kinda answered your own question there. As it is, they DON'T get equal rights. Marriage would get them the rights they seek.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I heard the sea captain thing is actually only a legend."

I have met a sea captain who makes most of his money doing marriages on his ship. Ceremony, marriage venue and reception, all in one neat package.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarriedAtSea

It's not an immediate perk of just being a captain. You have to be licensed to do it. Maybe the guy you know was licensed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Just for the asking, cause it'll amuse, horrify and perplex my ex and her new beau....

Umm, so how big does the boat have to be for that to be legally binding ?

-F

Just big enough for one ride, according to the old laws.

/filth

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:16 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow! I come back a day later and look at this puppy! I’m glad it started a conversation; sadly, it’s been a conversation about marriage, etc., and to me the more important thing was two people who had to live a lie for SIXTY-ONE YEARS and still can’t marry. Sure, they can get civil union somewhere, or go to Massachusetts I suppose, but even that is only recent, and given they’ve hung together far longer than the vast, vast majority of heterosexuals, it speaks volumes to me.

This is to everyone, since I’m too lazy to reply individually right now:

Sky, there are myriad instances where homosexuals are denied the rights of hetero couples. If the doctors, etc., CHOOSE to recognize their status, that’s fine, but many do not. They can’t adopt children in most places, the parents of either partner have the “rights” to decide a lot of things, and on and on. It’s not comparable except in places which legally recognize it, and I wouldn’t want to take chances on someone in authority “choosing” to recognize my partner, I dunno about you!

The argument that hetero marriage has been around since forever holds no weight. SLAVERY has been around forever, too, and is still practiced; that doesn’t make it right. And for the most part, the world has recognized it’s wrongness and outlawed it. Marriage as a concept didn’t exist until I-dunno-when (I’m sure someone can tell us); originally people coupled because of sexual attraction (cavemen, etc.) and claimed rights over the woman because of physical strength. If we’re to say that we haven’t evolved past our early history, and that because something has been for a long, long time, it should always stay that way, we’d never have moved ahead on ANYTHING. I choose to believe mankind is moving forward, not backward, albeit some of us being dragged kicking and screaming to do so.

Jim and I were married in a field by my best friend’s sister, who was “ordained” back in the 60s when, by way of protest against religion, you could get those Universal Life ordinations through the mail. I thought it was neat, not being the religious sort, and marriage didn’t mean much to us anyway, except in legal terms; we wouldn’t be “married” now if it weren’t for that, nor would my friend and her husband. We only did it 'cuz it seemed neat; I don't think Paula and her Jim had any ceremony at all. Jim and I were together for ten years before we bothered, which in California made ours a "common-law marriage", which homosexuals can't have.

Mike, Kiki, Rose is right about

Quote:
"Marriage" is a religious ceremony. A singular "man-and-woman" ceremony performed before, family, friends, God, and ordained by a priest (or priestess).

What you do at a courthouse is just as much a marriage legally and is called such. You don’t hear people saying “we’ve been civil unionized for twenty years”. You have to get a marriage LICENSE...after that there’s no need for ceremony unless you want one or you don’t feel married within your religion without it. She’s covered most of my points better, as well, and I’d forgotten about insurance companies, which is a really good point.

Happy, may I respectfully offer my kuddos, as a religious person, for having such an open mind. Most people who call themselves “religious” (whether they actually are or not) aren’t that open minded.

Hardware,

Quote:
Having a different opinion invites attack

is bullshit, but predictable, coming from you. There are disagreements aplenty in just this thread, and they’re all civil; Raptor has condemned himself to having people view him the way we do by virtually everything he’s ever posted. I don’t like that some pick on him, no matter what he says, but I sure understand it! It has nothing to do with disagreement; he’s made his own bed (as are you, rapidly, for me at least), now he has to lie in it.

Riona, while we agree about many things, I find this abhorrent:

Quote:
if they don't mind doing their own thing and making their own choices about how they want to live their lives, why is the idea of being "married" so important to them?

Homosexuals haven’t necessarily CHOSEN to be outside society, society MAKES them so. I’m not going beyond that because I wouldn’t be able to do so without being angry. I know some homosexuals, I worked for a lesbian and a gay man at the same time and have worked WITH a number of homosexuals; none of them “chose” to be outside society, they WANT to be inside society and dressed, behaved, and WERE just like everyone else except for that one thing. That’s all I’ll say.

Geezer’s got it

Quote:
No matter what the states do, nothing much is gonna change until the Congress gets on the ball and repeals the "Defense of Marriage Act", which codifies 'Marriage' as existing only between one man and one woman, for purposes of all Federal law.

Just like medical marijuana, the federal government’s rules override anything else, if they want it to.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Ahh yes, name calling, right out of the box."

I guess Rap hasn't gotten the memo, even though I've posted this several times ... hmmmm ... maybe if I put it in caps ... THE ONLY VALUE RAP HOLDS FOR ME IS A THING TO POINT AT AND LAUGH. Geeee, I sure hope he gets it this time.

Yep. I flat out told him the same, myself, years ago. And he continued to show that he didn't grasp the simple declarative statement.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Ahh yes, name calling, right out of the box.

You should be happy for that much. You're generally not worth any more.

Why ? For having my own opinion ?

Woooo... cast the first stone!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

Anything you have to say on any topic is worth scorn, because you are a worthless, loathsome individual.

Have a great day.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Having a different opinion invites attack.

Especially when the differing opinion is based in antiquated ideology over reason.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:30 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

Yes, I believe you have said before that it's applying "marriage" to something that it has never meant. (Which I would say is a union between two people in love, but I digress.) Words change definition all the time, as do their application in society.

Marriage was once a union based solely on finnancial security or class, today it is (mostly) optional to those who really want it and are (hopefully) in love. Likewise common terms today for "homosexuality" had very different meanings not too long ago: "queer" (strange), "gay" (happy), "faggot" (a collection of sticks) and "lesbian" (someone from the Greek isle of Lesbos).

"Love is love is a wonderful thing"; it is inherently wrong to deny thousands of people fulfillment. (And you wonder "Why would you want to get married? You already everything you want." But they'd like, nay they deserve, the choice; and choice leads to that great all y'all patriots love: freedom.)

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:17 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Go ahead and be abhored Niki a chara, there will never be a person who agrees with one upon everything in the world, so to repeatedly act shocked at my position because it doesn't agree with yours isn't going to get either of us anywhere. I like you too and yes we agree on _some things, but you being disappointed in my position on the matter isn't going to change it, nor would any disappointment expressed by me about yours. I know this is how you feel so I don't act shocked when you say things that indicate thusly.

I see a difference between feelings/physicality and actions. I think I'm uncommon in that way.

One can call me closed minded if they wish, one can call me all sorts of other things if they wish, it isn't my concern nor can or should I stop them because they have the free speech to do so.

I still think my license of Sharingstuff is a good thing, why must people be having sex in order to share such benefits? Now that's closed minded. But would I call anyone who is sharing benefits married? No I wouldn't, because 5 plus 5 does not equal 72.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 21, 2011 9:40 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

There's a philosophy that 5+5 doesn't neccessarily equal 10. Just that it's more likely to equal 10 than not.

Edit: Just to be clear, just a sardonic aside.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:02 AM